Hobbes and Rousseau
3 September 2008
Hobbes’ approach to conflict
• Where does conflict come from, for
Hobbes?
– Desire to preserve your life plus
– Rationality plus
– Lack of a sovereign authority
Hobbes’ approach to conflict
• How does conflict get resolved, according to
Hobbes?
– The conflicting parties agree to a sovereign
Hobbes’ approach to conflict
• The reasoning of the parties
– It is better for each of us individually that there be a
sovereign.
– It is relatively unimportant, however, who that
sovereign is.
– But once we agree on such a sovereign, we realize
that it is no longer rational for us not to promise to
restrain ourselves, and it is no longer rational to
disagree on the sovereign
– Peace endures so long as we agree on the sovereign
Hobbes’ approach to conflict
• The civil state is always better than the
state of nature; any form of government is
better than no government
Rousseau’s approach to conflict
• What are human beings naturally like, for
Rousseau?
– They desire to preserve themselves
– But they are not calculating machines
– And they have an aversion to killing
– They are also naturally independent, and love
their independence
Rousseau’s approach to conflict
• Are human beings naturally in conflict?
– No: if we assume that originally human beings
were few and widely scattered, Rousseau’s
assumptions imply no great degree of conflict
Rousseau’s approach to conflict
• So where does conflict come from if it is
not natural?
– Not the desire to preserve oneself, but the
comparative passion of amour propre
– The development of rationality in the service
of amour propre
– The smothering of the aversion to killing
– The loss of natural independence and the
development of inequality
Amour propre vs. amour de soi
• Amour de soi: the natural self-love of man
for his own existence.
• Amour propre: the self-love of man in
comparison to others
• Amour propre is only possible when we
have become interdependent and can no
longer live without many others
The development of rationality
• The progress of our rationality depends on
increasing interdependence (e.g.,
language)
• Yet the progress of our rationality outruns
our moral progress: “morals become
corrupted as minds become more
enlightened”
The aversion to killing
• One has to become cruel; it does not
normally happen overnight
• One of the most effective means of muting
the aversion to killing is group solidarity
(e.g., nationalism)
The loss of natural independence
• We naturally love independence, not being
in the power of another: this is freedom
• Interdependence destroys freedom by
creating social inequality, and hence
fosters conflict
• Our natural love of independence prevents
the Hobbesian solution as well
Rousseau’s approach to conflict
• Conflict is ultimately the result, not of
equality and our natural desires, but of
inequality and our socialized desires,
which come from the formation of society
• In sum, conflict is a result of injustice
The development of the civil state
• Primary state of nature: total
independence, scattered human beings,
no conflict
The development of the civil state
• Population pressures lead to: small, more
or less stateless bands of relatively
independent individuals (e.g., the Caribs).
– First development of “comparative” passions
and the conflicts attendant on it
The development of the civil state
• The invention of property leads to
widespread conflict between rich and poor
in a stateless context: the Hobbessian
“state of nature.”
The development of the civil state
• The state is an invention of the rich, who
benefit the most from it
– It prevents some of the horrid conflict of the
previous stage
– But all of these original states are quite
imperfect and unjust, and though people tried
to make them better occasionally, they mostly
degenerated into tyrannies
The development of the social state
• “Well versed in my duties and happiness, I
shut my book, leave the classroom, and
look around me. I see unfortunate nations
groaning under yokes of iron, the human
race crushed by a handful of oppressors, a
starving crowd overwhelmed with pain and
hunger, whose blood and tears the rich
drink in peace, and everywhere the strong
armed against the weak with the
formidable power of the law”
The development of the civil state
• Yet the state externalizes conflict:
– Once one society is formed, others must form too
– But states, unlike individuals, are not naturally equal,
and are placed in close connections with one another
– Their power is thus relative to the power of other
states
– Moreover, states are vigorous to the extent they
generate internal solidarity
– But internal solidarity can destroy the aversion to
killing members of other groups
The development of the state
• “War comes from peace”, i.e., from the
development of states
• War is thus endemic in the international
system
Rousseau’s approach to conflict
• How can conflict be resolved, then?
– Returning to the state of nature (generally
impossible)
– More perfectly socializing ourselves: creating
a just society that replicates natural
independence through dependence on the
laws, and creating a federation of such
societies (also terribly difficult)
Countervailing tendencies
• Is there any hope?
– Nature is not entirely suppressed; it can never
be entirely extinguished
• Human beings generally still love independence
(freedom)
• Human beings generally still find it hard to kill and
they abhor killing
What would a just society look like?
• Eliminates all personal dependence and
substitutes for it a dependence on the law:
the rule of law
• Socializes us into becoming citizens, not
having a private will distinct from the
general will
• It is also small and not faced with great
external dangers or the temptation to
conquer
Who is right, Hobbes or Rousseau?